J-S (Children)

J-S (Children)

The judge correctly applied the law in assessing risk and proportionality, and was entitled to find that electronic tagging would not sufficiently mitigate the risk to the children. There was no basis for interfering with the interim care orders, and no need for further guidance on tagging in standard care cases.

Parties
Subject Children: J-S (Children); Appellant: Father; Respondent Local Authority: Oxfordshire County Council; Respondent Mother: Mother; Respondent Father: Father of older children; Respondent Children: Children (through Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family Law Care Proceedings) / Appeal From Interim Care Orders and Refusal of Electronic Tagging Before Fact Finding Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal on ground one refused; no further guidance on electronic tagging issued.
Legal Topics
Interim Care Orders, Electronic Tagging, Appeal Procedure, Proportionality, Judicial Discretion
Family Law Child Protection Interim Care Orders Electronic Tagging Appeal Procedure Proportionality Judicial Discretion

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J-S (Children)

Subject Children

Father

Appellant

Oxfordshire County Council

Respondent Local Authority

Mother

Respondent Mother

Father of older children

Respondent Father

Children (through Guardian)

Respondent Children

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family Law Care Proceedings) / Appeal From Interim Care Orders and Refusal of Electronic Tagging Before Fact Finding Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge was wrong to conclude that continued separation of the children from their mother was proportionate
  2. 2 Whether guidance is needed on the availability of electronic tagging in standard care cases

Ratio Decidendi

The judge correctly applied the law in assessing risk and proportionality, and was entitled to find that electronic tagging would not sufficiently mitigate the risk to the children. There was no basis for interfering with the interim care orders, and no need for further guidance on tagging in standard care cases.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal on ground one refused; no further guidance on electronic tagging issued.